Many readers take issue with the proposal to restrict traffic on Point Grey Road in Vancouver.

Photograph by: Arlen Redekop
, PNG

The Vancouver Public Space Network, a non-profit group engaged in advocacy, outreach and education on issues pertaining to Vancouver’s public realm, supports the City of Vancouver’s proposal to improve pedestrian and cycling experience by reconfiguring the Point Grey Road and Cornwall Street.

High-quality public spaces start with safe pedestrian facilities. The corridor has long been identified as problematic for people travelling on foot; enhancements in this regard, including measures to reduce speeds, are overdue. Pedestrian improvements will benefit a large group of residents and commuters — as transit users end their trips as pedestrians. Finally, the proximity of Kitsilano to both downtown to the north and the Broadway corridor to the south — important pedestrian areas each in their own right — makes this area ideal for increasing pedestrian traffic to local businesses and improving pedestrian circulation by making walking safer, more enjoyable and more popular.

This plan also makes important strides toward reducing conflicts between travellers using different modes — particularly cyclists and pedestrians, and between cyclists and transit vehicles.

By investing in infrastructure to make our network of cycling and pedestrian routes more attractive and comfortable, we broaden access to these travel options for those of all ages and abilities.

We support the Point Grey Road-Cornwall Street proposal for moving Vancouver toward the vision of a public realm supportive of people, not motor vehicles, in keeping with the objectives identified in the city of Vancouver’s Transportation 2040 plan update, including its commitment to zero pedestrian fatalities.

Karen Quinn Fung

Public transit projects lead, Vancouver Public Space Network

I implore Vancouver city council not to proceed with the current proposals for the Cornwall-Point Grey Road corridor and to commit time instead to exploring a third option.

I am deeply concerned about the effect rerouted traffic (estimated at 10,000 cars daily) along Macdonald or elsewhere will have on the current infrastructure. I do not believe rerouted traffic clogging other arterial roads, or disturbing quiet neighbourhoods as they seek ways around congestion, will add to our Vancouver-Kitsilano “green” reputation.

But my overriding concern is one of process. As a resident of York Avenue, I was not directly consulted about the proposed changes to the road I live on. Nor did I receive notice from the city about any of the meetings in which plans were presented to some community members. Nor do I know of any resident of the 2200 block of York Avenue who received notice of these meetings, although the city assures us a postcard was sent out. In light of this, I would like know who the 18,000 consulted members of our community represented and how they received their invitations to these meetings.

I am a cyclist. I use the Burrard Street Bridge path and support separated bike lanes. I am not averse to a separated bike path on York Avenue. But I will not support change without genuine consultation that truly represents everyone in our community.

Barbara Girling, Vancouver

While the bike lane proposal helps the “approximately 130 homeowners on Point Grey Road,” it hinders the “10,000 vehicle” drivers and their passengers who save time and thereby money by using the road, and it increases the exhaust pollution because of the extra time that these vehicles have to be running, while congesting adjoining streets, including 4th Avenue, to reach their destination. Sure, it will make the street safer for bicyclists but safer than what? How many accidents are occurring now and by how much will they reduced, and at what cost?

Let us add these additional costs of inconvenience to the 10,000 drivers and their passengers that use the street and weigh that against the cost of reduction in bicycle accidents before this ideologically driven scheme in favour of cyclists is given approval.

Jiti Khanna, Vancouver

Closing Point Grey Road is just the latest of poor transportation solutions that benefit few at the expense of many. Homeowners who bought on Point Grey Road knew their properties fronted on to a main thoroughfare. If moving people efficiently is really the aim of this decision, then we would be using the Arbutus Corridor for something other than vegetable patches, bike lanes would be found on side streets and all intersections allowing left turns would have an advance green. Buses would not sport “Sorry Not In Service” marquees at rush hour and curb obstructions forcing cars into one lane before an intersection would evaporate. All lanes of east-west arteries such as Marine Drive and 41st would be open as opposed to the use of acres of yellow verboten traffic throttling markings. Vancouver city council has a need to be adored for building the greenest city. Too bad there’s little connection to the reality that idling cars spew pollution, public transit is uneven and most residents will never bike to work.

Rhona Raskin, Vancouver

Anyone who believes the proposed closure of Point Grey Road is about biking has been fooled. This scheme is entirely designed to benefit the wealthy property owners of Point Grey Road.

I have lived in Point Grey for decades and can confirm that very few bikes travel on Point Grey Road in winter, but cars drive that road year round. In future, cars will be forced to follow the stop and start nightmares of 4th Avenue or Broadway.

Jerry Dobrovolny, Vancouver city transportation director, wants to discourage tourists who enjoy Point Grey Road from using it to access parks and beaches. Is he against tourism? And when tourism declines, will we be satisfied to make up the lost revenue through increased taxes?

If this project proceeds, don’t think it will be the last street to be closed to the masses. Next on the list will be Southwest Marine Drive, where other wealthy property owners would no doubt love to join the privileged few on Point Grey Road who have somehow convinced Dobrovolny and some council members to ensure their street becomes a personal park. One wonders what they did to make that dream come true.

Joan Rush, Vancouver

Like many rational people, I think the debate the press has framed as “cars versus bikes” is polarizing and unhelpful in advancing positive change. This approach to discussing how we move around the city fails to recognize that at different times and in different places, we all have various transportation needs. We are not and should not be defined as drivers or cyclists.

We must find new ways of accommodating mobility in our changing city. This means making walking, cycling and transit more desirable; sometimes at the expense of vehicles. We may find that by improving conditions for walking, cycling and transit, that positive things happen in Vancouver. People could be healthier, they could socialize more and affordability could be improved.

In the past, I was a frequent user of the Point Grey Cornwall corridor. I travelled by bike from downtown to my workplace at UBC. It felt like the natural path to take after exiting from the Burrard Street Bridge, even though I had to navigate parked cars, narrow lanes, homes under construction and speeding vehicles. The change will be a major improvement.

The Point Grey/Cornwall corridor is a neighbourhood full of parks, people and energy. It should be the link that connects our seawall and it should accommodate the type of travel that fits and nourishes the parks and open spaces.

I encourage council to approve the project.

Adam Cooper, Vancouver (Kitsilano)

As a resident of York Avenue, and previously in the 3500 block of Point Grey Road, I must say the proposed changes do not suit the citizens of this area. There is very little available parking on Point Grey from Alma to MacDonald to accommodate the residents.

Alleys are narrow and the side streets are already pretty full. Dedicating this stretch of roadway to bicycles does not make sense.

Too many times I’ve had to follow groups of cyclists riding two- or three-abreast and even those who are in single file are in danger should anyone open their driver’s door without looking.

First or Second Avenue should be dedicated for cyclists as residential traffic is more forgiving than commuting along Point Grey Road. Why do we have to change this route for less than one per cent of the population? As usual, these changes appear to be a done deal before the city even starts neighbourhood discussions.

Edwina Peterson, Vancouver

The debate about the proposed Cornwall bike lane is not helped by comments about rich homeowners. in general or Chip Wilson in particular. It is possible to have reservations about bike lanes without being an opponent of everything labelled “green.”

If any road in that area were to be given over to bikes and pedestrians, it should be Fourth Avenue. It’s a great shopping area and would make a perfect traffic-free zone. Knowing the district well, I seriously doubt the reassurances I’ve heard that Third and Fourth avenues could accommodate the thousands of cars a day that would be diverted from closure of Cornwall. This does not make me an ecological dinosaur.

There would be room for a bike lane if parking were banned on the north side of Cornwall. Alternatively, we could simply expand the bike lane that already exists on Third Avenue. Whatever we decide, this isn’t rich against poor or greens against old fossil-burning diehards.

The evolution of traffic management in our city is a vital subject that affects all our futures. Suggestions should be discussed on their merits, not class warfare.

Dianne Seear, Vancouver

I don’t live on Point Grey Road. I don’t live in Vancouver; I live in North Delta (the homes are more affordable out here). I do, however, like to visit various areas of Vancouver on occasion.

Please tell me that your story discussing the closing of Point Grey Road to other than the residents of this attractive thoroughfare is something that somehow managed to get missed on April 1 and simply turned up by mistake in today’s newspaper. Where else in Vancouver would such an initiative ever be considered?

This entire matter smacks of favouritism and privilege which is not at all deserved. I think I’ll take a cruise down this privileged street this evening. I might even park there, for free and for as long as I’m allowed. If the residents of Point Grey Road wish to live in a gated community they should move to one and stop being so silly.

Dave Doman, Surrey

Prepaid Visa cards: An incredible financial product for the company, but not customer

While waiting in our local supermarket I happened to see a display of prepaid Visa cards. Having nothing more important to do, I started reading the fine print on one of the cards. I could not believe my eyes when I saw the charges Visa makes.

Let’s say a father decides to give his daughter Jenny a $100 prepaid card so that if her boyfriend takes her to a party and gets drunk, she can refuse to let him drive her home and instead get a taxi. So he buys a card ($5.95) and loads it up with $100. There is a loading charge of $3.95 so his total cost for the loaded card is $109.90. To keep things simple, let’s say $110.

Three months go by and Jenny has used the card twice. Each time she went to an ATM for $40 cash to pay a cab. Let’s see what the situation is now.

First the value of the card is reduced by the $80 that has been withdrawn. There is a fee of $1.95 each time cash is withdrawn so there goes another $3.90. But wait, there is also a monthly fee of $4.95 just for having the card. So three months have created another $14.85 of deductions from the card value. That adds up to $18.75 in deductions, leaving $1.25 remaining. Jenny could not withdraw this $1.25 because there is a $1.95 charge each time a cash withdrawal is made, so the card is now worthless.

From dad’s point of view, the card is a ripoff. He paid $110 and Jenny got back $80.

Now let’s look at this from the Visa side. Visa received a $110 payment at the start of the process. Visa took absolutely no risk because they didn’t put up any money. Not a penny. Over a three-month period Visa paid back $80 and now the card has been reduced to zero value. What a sweet deal.

I think it is outrageous that Visa makes a monthly charge for holding money they have been given upfront. There is no cost to Visa for holding this cash: being careful money managers, I’m sure Visa put it to work and make a little interest while holding it. So a case could be made for Visa to pay the cardholder a modest bonus for not using the card.

There are several lessons to be drawn from this review of a financial services industry product. The most important is the greed of the service providers knows no bounds. Do not assume fees and other charges are reasonable without digging into the fine print. And always look at what alternatives are available. If dad had simply given Jenny $100 cash, he would have saved himself $10, Jenny would still have $20 left in her purse, and there would be no “melting” of the value as time passes.

Dave Doman, Surrey

Life awareness formed in youth and middle age; some see the past more clearly than the present

I read The Sun’s daily column This Day in History with great interest. The pictures and accompanying words usually bring back memories of events and people with great clarity and nostalgia. However, due to my advanced age, a Second World War veteran in his late 80s, I have a confession to make.

It seems to me that our younger memories are stamped indelibly into our minds while some of the events happening today are simply a blur unless our personal interest is at stake. For instance, Cory Monteith’s death is prominent news in all media. I confess I had never heard of him as his type of entertainment is of no interest to me whatsoever.

I know I am not alone in this unawareness of current events. Those still living and with whom I chat will all admit to the same thing. Our awareness of life is shaped by the happenings of what was interesting and vital in our time of youth and middle age.

We encourage all readers to share their views on our articles and blog posts. We are committed to maintaining a lively but civil forum for discussion, so we ask you to avoid personal attacks, and please keep your comments relevant and respectful. If you encounter a comment that is abusive, click the "X" in the upper right corner of the comment box to report spam or abuse. We are using Facebook commenting. Visit our FAQ page for more information.